THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Manish Choudhury, J
PRADIP KR DUTTA – Appellant
Versus
SMT. L. SWEETY CHANGSAN IAS AND 2 ORS. – Respondent
Cont.Cas(C)/206/2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. verification of compliance with a court-mandated direction to pass a speaking order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. closure of contempt proceedings upon satisfaction of the court regarding the respondent's compliance. (Para 4 , 5) |
ORDER
Heard Mr. S.R.A. Naser, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1; and Ms. M. Barman, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3.
2. This contempt petition was preferred complaining non-compliance of the direction made in a Judgment and Order dated 05.04.2025 passed in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1466/2025. By the Judgment and Order dated 05.04.2025, the Designated Public Servant was directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for the notified public service, ‘Conversion of land from Annual Patta [P.P.] to Periodic Patta [P.P.]’, strictly in compliance of the provisions of Section 7[2] of the Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012, as amended, and the Notification dated 14.03.2022; and thereafter, to pass a speaking and reasoned order within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of a copy of the said order by the petitioner at the office of the Designated Public Servant.
3. Today, Ms. Barman has placed a copy of an Order bearing MISC CASE no. 16/2025 dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Designated Public Servant whereby the application of the petitioner has been disposed of. It is submitted by Ms. Barman that a copy of the Order dated 28.11.2025 was duly supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner had acknowledged the receipt of the same on 12.05.2026. In addition, Ms. Barman has handed over a copy of the Order dated 28.11.2025 to Mr. Naser also.
4. In view of the passing of the Order dated 28.11.2025 by the Designated Public Servant, there is no further cause of action to proceed with the instant contempt petition. The contempt petition is accordingly closed. If the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner by the Order dated 28.11.2025, it remains open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, as permissible under the law.
5. A copy of the Order dated 28.11.2025, placed by Ms. Barman, is to be kept with the case record.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.